NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) resp |
NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) resp |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
*I have read it. It states: "Use the most common unambiguous name" and "US civil aircraft: Manufacturer and name or number as appropriate according to common usage". While the manufacturers may well have used "Whisperliner" etc. as brand names when the aircraft were sold, that's not "the most common" name for these aircraft. Again, it's not a good idea to change the title of high-profile articles without getting consensus first. [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] ([[User talk:NawlinWiki|talk]]) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
*I have read it. It states: "Use the most common unambiguous name" and "US civil aircraft: Manufacturer and name or number as appropriate according to common usage". While the manufacturers may well have used "Whisperliner" etc. as brand names when the aircraft were sold, that's not "the most common" name for these aircraft. Again, it's not a good idea to change the title of high-profile articles without getting consensus first. [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] ([[User talk:NawlinWiki|talk]]) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
**You wrote: "the Manufactures name is what counts and should be used when ever possible". You're no longer following the Wikipedia naming guidelines -- now you're just arguing for what you think should be the rule, based on your own preference. Even more reason not to move the pages without consensus. Why are you afraid of asking for consensus? Go to the talk pages of both articles, make your argument for why you think the pages should be moved, and see if people agree with you. [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] ([[User talk:NawlinWiki|talk]]) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:55, 17 September 2008
As for B-25s... below is quote from this article about this type and feel free to make good use of it ;)
During the last quarter of 1967, the Biafran Air Force took delivery of further twin-engined bombers which have been continually mistaken by the press and observers of the conflict as additional B-26s. They were, in fact, North American B-25s. One B-25 is mentioned by several authors as being flown by a German mercenary, Fred Herz. A telephone conversation between the author and Herz before he died revealed that there were two of these aircraft, although doubts remain amongst pilots who served in Biafra that both B-25s actually arrived in theatre. Purchased in December 1964 by one John Frederick Osterholt of Homestead, Florida, the B-25 was then sold to a company called Aerographic Inc whose President turned out to be the same John Osterholt. The aircraft's official history cannot be traced beyond this point but circumstantial evidence suggests it went to Biafra arriving in August 1967. The possible link between Osterholt and Biafra was exposed as a result of an interview in 1997 with Robert W. Cobaugh, an American who owned a company in called Tripoints Associates, Hialeah, Florida. Tripoints were manufacturers' representatives dealing in reconditioned aero engines and aviation spares and, during the Biafran conflict, in leasing and operating cargo carrying aircraft. Cobaugh was also to become heavily involved later in the conflict as the driving force behind a shadowy organisation known as Phoenix Air Transport which flew arms and supplies into the beleaguered Biafra. Whether, in fact, Tripoints had any direct involvement in the B-25 deal is not known. Cobaugh's recollection of the affair is somewhat vague. The B-25s were by no means the only aircraft whose procurement Cobaugh might have handled as the years passed. The identity of the other B-52 remains elusive. A possible contender was a TB-25J which, in February 1964, was registered to a Miami-based company called Intercontinental Trading Co. When this company went out of business in 1967, the aircraft was 'flown out of the country, destination unknown' - Biafra? The first aircraft arrived in Biafra in August 1967. The second, according to one report, arrived on the island of Sao Tome around the same time loaded with a cargo of salt, then a valuable commodity in Biafra! It remained in Sao Tome, still loaded and with corrosion taking its toll until the second half of November when it was reportedly ferried into Biafra. Little information has been found regarding the markings carried by Biafran B-25s. The one remaining at Port Harcourt was simply described as being a 'brownish colour' with a lighter underside.
That's why I have doubts about B-285s use in Biafran AF, but maybe I'm wrong and we should count this type too? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- With your latest info it seems clear that B-25s were in fact used by Biafran AF but due to similarity to B-26 were little known. I've added Biafra to the Operators of this type. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A-26 Survivors Dave, you amended the table column widths, with what seems to me no benefits, at least in IE7; all it seems to do is increase wasteful spaces, and as usual you didn't provide anything useful in the Edit Summary - please explain yourself. PeterWD (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Series of Edits on B-17
I have noticed that you have made a series of edits to the B-17 Flying Fortress article in reference to captions. May I please inquire to where your sources for these edits are? Because many of the images that I pulled came straight from the United States Air Force website and the information provided on their captions are not nearly as detailed as your edits. -Signaleer (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
B-17 Article
- Captions came from several different sources - lets start with the into picture:
- ran the s/n through my computer and got the correct block number, ran the s/n through the internet and found the found that the aircraft crashed in Florida in 1944 while assigned to a training squardon - also, if you look at the picture, it is very obvious that the bombbay is closed. If I were to add to the picture, it would also state this this aircraft was on its acceptance flight (look how clean the wings are).
- registration number for Boeing 299 is common knowledge.
- RAF Liberator B.I - ran visible s/n through Baugher page, verified though internet search.
- caption for SB-17G 44-83722 comes from my B-17 survivors page - this aircraft until recently was a survivors but has been parted out to get 3 other B-17's flyable - this aircraft was also used as an atom bomb ground test target.
- B-17G 43-38172 information can be found here: info about 43-38172 - tried doing this as a reference but could not get the link correct.
- trying to find the s/n for B-17E Pistol Packin' Momma
- some of the information is just a matter of doing a google search - I like detailed captions and have tried to do a little clean-up of the captions - the order I like is Make and model and s/n on the top line (ie B-17G-30BO 43-XXXX), aircraft name right at the beginning of the second line then rest of info afterwards
AFD notices
Dave, given your rant on RL's page, I doubt you'll belive me, but I had nothing to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surviving aircraft. But I thought you should know about it as soon as possible, since the nominator hasn't gotten around to notifying you about it yet, since you created most, if not all, of them. FWIW. - BillCJ (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- On that subject, I've declined your request to have the articles deleted. I know it's frustrating to have what looks to be excellent work discussed as a candidate for deletion, but please review the debate - I'm seeing quite the consensus to keep the items. Having commented, I won't be closing the debate, but I wanted to let you know that it's a consensus-based process, and there are good arguments for keeping the material. Chin up, there - no need to over-react. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
"Breakaway"
I agree with every single one of the dot-points you make on my talk page.
However, there's a problem inherent the reasoning behind your question. It seems that your aim is to somehow "insulate" the survivors articles from the conventions that apply to the rest of Wikipedia's aircraft coverage, but creating a separate WikiProject wouldn't achieve that. Why? Because no WikiProject is immune from the more generalised conventions that already exist, in the same way that WikiProject Aircraft is subordinate to WikiProject Aviation, and to the more general policies of Wikipedia in general.
Basically, the only way you could achieve the insulation you're after would be to create a separate Wikia (or other wiki) (or use one of the existing aircraft-related ones - Airframes was set up specifically to allow for detailed histories of individual airframes, but unfortunately, I simply haven't had the time to develop it - PSW would also be very glad for this kind of contribution).
In case you're still interested in learning more about the WikiProject process, though, the proposals page is here. Note the advice that a separate WikiProject will need about 5-10 active participants to "get off the ground". Also note that at present Wikipedia has something like 300 failed WikiProjects (with at least one significant Aviation-related one) - failed because they just didn't attract enough participants to keep them going. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Airframes
To answer your questions one at a time:
Do you have any problems with my posting the survivors series (as created ) at this site?
- No - they're exactly the sort of thing that Airframes was set up for. In time, each of these airframes would be given its own page, but these are perfect overviews.
How compatable is it with wikipedia (ie links and such) what do I have to do to make the article compatable?
- I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you just copied-and-pasted the wikicode of a Wikipedia article over to airframes, it would work straight away. Of course, most of the links would show up red, because Airframes only has about 200 articles at the moment. If you wanted to link to a Wikipedia article (like one about a place, for example), you would have to do it as an external link (since it's a separate wiki). Wikipedia articles about aircraft, however, could simply be copied across (as long as the source is acknowledged).
- As an example, here's the Consolidated Liberator I article that you originally contributed to Wikipedia, but which I rescued some time ago to preserve it in its original, detailed form. This article on a historic DC-6 was deleted from Wikipedia, but is pretty much the perfect Airframe article.
Is the editing the same or different?
- The same. Airframes is based on exactly the same Wiki software that drives Wikipedia. Feel free to set up a sandbox and make some test edits if you like. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Replies
User pages: Note that using userpages to preserve your preferred version of an article is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Page moves: yes, I understand that you were trying to make a point - that's exactly the behaviour that the policy addresses. You've been with us long enough to know better than this! And fair enough, the page moves could be easily undone, but it wasted someone else's time having to undo it (and even then, I managed to mung it up and accidentally deleted one of the actual talk pages and had to restore it). --Rlandmann (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hang in there
Hi, I think you're getting a bit stressed and I'm responsible for part of it. Some of my comments have been a bit clumsy. Hang in there.
You've done lots of really good work, and I'd really hate to be part of the reason you stopped.
Have a read of User:andrewa/creed and you'll see where I'm coming from. I don't always live up to it obviously. I get stressed too.
Or have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6 star rank for some of why I get stressed. Oh well. Andrewa (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dave, I know you're frustrated and discouraged...I can hardly blame you, but I'd like to encourage you to take a step back, take a deep breath...hey, if at all possible, go flying - it does wonders for one's perspective! Your hard work and contribution of your time is appreciated more than you realize. You know the old saying "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"? Well, that's exactly what happens here. Now that the AfD process has been completed, you can sit back and realize that even with the abbreviated time period, consensus clearly established the lists' place in this project. That makes the articles/lists stronger, and while no one "owns" anything around here, you can take pride in the fact that your hard work and the contribution of your invaluable time means something to people, and though the form will morph over time, the core of what you started is as permanent as anything can be in this project. Blue skies! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
DC-8 and 727 moves
I've reverted these -- it appears to me that you've moved the pages to names that are clearly not the most commonly used ones for these aircraft. I think you need to discuss such moves on the article talk pages first, and obtain consensus. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have read it. It states: "Use the most common unambiguous name" and "US civil aircraft: Manufacturer and name or number as appropriate according to common usage". While the manufacturers may well have used "Whisperliner" etc. as brand names when the aircraft were sold, that's not "the most common" name for these aircraft. Again, it's not a good idea to change the title of high-profile articles without getting consensus first. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- You wrote: "the Manufactures name is what counts and should be used when ever possible". You're no longer following the Wikipedia naming guidelines -- now you're just arguing for what you think should be the rule, based on your own preference. Even more reason not to move the pages without consensus. Why are you afraid of asking for consensus? Go to the talk pages of both articles, make your argument for why you think the pages should be moved, and see if people agree with you. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)